Symbiote65
03-06-2009, 08:58 AM
In this post, I'm not going to argue that Aventurine fears nothing more than the exposure of its motives and activities. Nor am I going to argue that it's truly speaking through its hat when it says that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. I'm not going to argue those factors because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that objective consideration of its unforgiving campaigns compels the conclusion that I decidedly don't want to have to listen to its villainous billingsgate. Let's get down to brass tacks: Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Aventurine finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Aventurine's backers give Aventurine credit for things it hasn't done. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but "Aventurine" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone perpetrate acts of the most coprophagous character, I tell him or her to stop "Aventurine-ing".
Aventurine maintains that its vices are the only true virtues. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that its op-ed pieces can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that I wouldn't judge Aventurine's supporters too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for Aventurine's plot to help sadistic fugitives evade capture by the authorities.
Aventurine often argues that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known sluggard and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that Aventurine's opinion is that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented teachings. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Aventurine keeps saying that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, it constantly insists that everything it says is thoroughly and entirely true. But it contradicts itself when it says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. In the beginning of this post, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: Aventurine's apologias fail to convince me that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/
Aventurine maintains that its vices are the only true virtues. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that its op-ed pieces can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that I wouldn't judge Aventurine's supporters too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for Aventurine's plot to help sadistic fugitives evade capture by the authorities.
Aventurine often argues that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known sluggard and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that Aventurine's opinion is that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented teachings. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Aventurine keeps saying that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, it constantly insists that everything it says is thoroughly and entirely true. But it contradicts itself when it says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. In the beginning of this post, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: Aventurine's apologias fail to convince me that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/